A 1909 Washington State Law Shielding a Woman's Virtue Is Being Challenged

By SARAH KERSHAW

Published: January 26, 2005

It is about time, politicians here are saying, for the state of Washington to catch up with the rest of the world.

Florida has struck down a law forbidding unmarried women from parachuting on Sundays. Michigan has done away with a law making it illegal to swear in front of women and children. Texas women no longer face 12 months in prison for adjusting their stockings in public. And the ladies of Maine can now legally tickle a man under the chin with a feather duster.

But here in Washington, in 2005, it is still illegal, under a 1909 law, to bring a woman's virtue into question publicly, to call her a hussy or a strumpet.

And now, a state senator from Seattle -- who is not saying she supports attacking the chastity of Washington women -- is, nevertheless, trying to overturn the state's ''slander of a woman'' law.

The law was enacted here at a time when women could not vote, when society viewed them as delicate flowers to be kept in the kitchen, tending to wood-burning stoves for their genteel gentlemen, vulnerable maidens in need of legal protection from verbal assaults on their purity. It was upheld by the State Supreme Court in 1914, which researchers say was apparently the last time it was before the courts.

Now, Senate Bill 5148, introduced this month by Senator Jeanne E. Kohl-Welles, a Democrat, would repeal the law, which makes it a misdemeanor to slander any woman older than 12 -- other than prostitutes -- by uttering ''any false or defamatory words or language which shall injure or impair the reputation of any such female for virtue or chastity or which shall expose her to hatred, contempt or ridicule.''

If the bill becomes law, women will have the same protection as men under the other slander laws, which will remain in effect.

Ms. Kohl-Welles -- who lectures on women's studies at the University of Washington and admits there are more pressing priorities facing a state with a $1.8 billion deficit -- said the old law was nonetheless a vestige of sexism, a ''double standard'' and an unconstitutional affront to free speech.

''Even though one type of treatment can appear on the surface to be positive and complimentary, it's also being protective and patronizing,'' said Ms. Kohl-Welles, who has researched other old-fashioned laws and found that many states have done away with them.

Washington women are not the only ones who have such legal protections against dastardly assaults on their integrity. Eight other states, including New York, still have similar laws on their books, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, even if they have been rarely used since the days of horse-drawn carriages.

Michigan is one of those states. But in 2002 an appeals court there did strike down a separate 105-year-old law that made it illegal to swear in front of women and children, after a man dubbed by local media the ''cussing canoeist'' was punished with a $75 fine and ordered to perform four days of community service. His offense was uttering profanities in front of women and children in 1999, after he fell out of his canoe.

Here in Washington, where Republicans and Democrats are deeply divided over a contested election for governor, the bill to repeal the law against slandering a woman seems to have support from both sides of the aisle, from both Venus and Mars, with three Democrats and one Republican, two men and two women, sponsoring the bill.

Ms. Kohl-Welles introduced the bill two years ago, but it quickly died in the Republican-controlled Senate. This year, Democrats control both houses of the Legislature, and the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Adam Kline, is a Democrat and a co-sponsor of the bill, leading to optimism about its prospects.

Mr. Kline said his interest in the bill was less about women's rights and more about purging the statute books of anachronisms.

''This was a simply an attempt to get rid of an anomaly, something that was enacted in 1909,'' he said. ''It's archaic. It has no business being in the law in the year 2005.'' While most of the nation's laws prohibiting impugning a woman's chastity have not been used for decades -- or longer -- New York's law was cited in a suit filed in 1996 by a Harlem teacher against Joe Klein, author of the 1995 novel ''Primary Colors,'' and his publisher, Random House. The teacher said she was the basis for a character who had a sexual relationship with a fictional Southern governor. She claimed a violation of New York State Civil Rights Law, Article 7, Section 77, relating to ''action of slander of a woman imputing unchastity to her.'' The case was dismissed in 2003.

With all of Washington's political and financial troubles, Ms. Kohl-Welles's effort to strike down the 1909 law has drawn some criticism.

''The last record of an appeal related to the crime was nine decades ago,'' said an editorial in The Seattle Times last Saturday, ''which makes you wonder what is Senate Bill 5148's urgency, given the daunting challenges facing the Legislature.''

Ms. Kohl-Welles acknowledged that as the Legislature, torn apart by the tumultuous election for governor, is tackling so many other things, the bill is not a high priority. Republicans have filed a lawsuit contesting the election of Christine O. Gregoire, the Democrat, who won by 129 votes after two recounts and was sworn in this month.

''On first blush, this could sound silly,'' Ms. Kohl-Welles said. ''I'm not fearful that women or men are going to be arrested and this has to be a big case for violations of this law. But let's just get rid of it.''